The article points out that, although Rove won't be indicted, he was "dangerously close to possible charges."

So let that be a lesson to him.

Topic over. Rats. But at least we still get to mull over Scooter's case, which appears to be struggling for relevance. And I hope the mainstream press found the push for prosecution worth it, now that leaking (and then printing) government secrets is no longer given a free pass.

I don't really understand why Rove gets to people so bad. It's kind of funny. I have too much work to do to browse around the blogosphere to see people freak out, but I'm going to take Mary's comment as basically what it will look like. It's not all that entertaining.

Hard not to think the Professor did this just to get a good active comments thread going for the day.

Do Rove's legal fees come out of his own pocket, or can he eventually seek restitution from the government? I think his ultimate revenge against the army of lefties slavering at the possibility of seeing him "frogmarched out of the White House" would be recovering his legal fees. Kos would withdraw into a fetal position.

The news today is that Karl Rove will not be indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald. I'll be back later with more on this. But first thought: that doesn't mean that Rove and the White House didn't do anything wrong. In fact, the White House falsely stated that (a) Rove (and Scooter Libby) were not involved in the leak and (b) that anyone involved would no longer work in the White House. Rove did tell two reporters (Robert Novak and Matt Cooper) about Joe Wilson's wife's employment at the CIA (undeniably classified information). And he's still working at the White House. What does that say about the man in charge of the White House?

He assumes we want more. Well, it's too late to get less, which was my preference. But good luck avoiding more, even if you steer clear of Corn. How many bloggers are typing out right new: he's still guilty because no one ever proved him innocent?

Do Rove's legal fees come out of his own pocket, or can he eventually seek restitution from the government?

I rather doubt it. Was Clinton able to seek restitution from the government?

And sippican, yes -- it's often the coverup that bites the Politician -- of whatever color -- in the kiester. You would think they would learn by now, wouldn't you? If it's true that no one will ever be charged for leaking in Plame (and I'm not certain that lack of charges relate to lack of crime, but whatever), well that's very similar to the Ken Starr thing, eh? Nothing came from the original investigation there either, just morphed and expanded until a charge appeared.

If you ask politicians enough questions under oath, my opinion is that eventually they will commit perjury.

Re: "If you ask politicians enough questions under oath, my opinion is that eventually they will commit perjury. "

It would appear that prosecutors have discovered this tactic, for if you ask anyone enough questions under oath, eventually one will commit what can be called perjury. It's not unlike how a State inspector can always find fault, because nothing is ever perfect. Heck, that's how Medicare funds some of its services (i.e. confiscation via penalties). All are sinners before the great and powerful State.

The question is, why is lying about something non-criminal a crime? Why are non-crimes of interest to prosecutors?And why do prosecutors (and attorneys general) seem to lack any oversight at all?

1. Makes the story about them and Wilson2. Obfuscates the Wilson fabrications by using Wilson's narrative to describe the precuros events.

Ms. Wilson is married to Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who wrote in an Op-Ed column in the New York Times on July 6, 2003 that White House officials, including Mr. Bush, had exaggerated assertions that Iraq had sought to purchase nuclear fuel from Africa. Mr. Wilson wrote that such claims were "highly dubious."

He said his conclusions were based on a trip he had made in early 2002 to Niger, a fact-finding mission that he said had been "instigated" by Mr. Cheney's office.

Many people see Rove as responsible for the emphasis on social conservativism that has led much of the Republican Party to abandon its conservative ideology (small-government, libertarian principles).

that theory only would work for RINO's like me. That doesn't begin to come up for a rationale for why the Democrats hate Rove. (e.g abandoning the GOP preference for small government, should please Demo's not send them into cardiac arrest at his name)

Unable to tolerate the collapse of the plan to frogmarch Rove for the sin of exposing Wilson's mendacity, the Left mocks a couple of kids.

It's like watching Lucille Ball get overwhelmed at the chocolate candy conveyor: Waaaaaaaaaah.Sheesh. Hey, I know, I have not one but two retarded brothers. Maybe you can mock them, too, much as I can take it and all. (Hint: one's so impaired he can't talk much. Ready? Set? Go!)

Reaction from the left? I predict a quick bluster followed by almost ignoring it. They will, however, stew on it amongst themselves until it finally metastisizes into another legendary example, along with Florida 2000, Ohio 2004 and Haliburton, as further proof of the evil and fascism of Chimpy BusHitler's regime and the corrupt Rethuglicans.

It is, as several people have already pointed out, unacceptable to use children like that. It's not interesting or funny or decent. And I'll delete posts that argue with me about this, so don't waste your time defending the practice here. Start your own blog if you think that's a good topic.

I go to jennifer's blog from time-to-time, and Mary's deposited her inane crap there too in a couple spots.

Sippican, he/they have "targeted" you for the same reason they have singled out Ann and this blog: envy. They see that you have developed a modest fanbase here, fellow longtime commenters who enjoy and look forward to reading your posts. I daresay they envy your wit and elegant writing as well.

I don't blame you for giving up in disgust, but I sure hate the implication that they "accomplished their mission," as ronin put it.

I think it is wonderful beyond words we live in a land where you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Where it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than it is to imprison one innocent man.

Eugene Volokh has a great essay about that. n Guilt Men He wrote this when he was still more computer geek than law professor.

So yes, I was way too early in celebrating Rove's indictment.

But Ann, what do you actually make of Rove's seemingly unprecedented number of trips to the grand jury? Or the fact that the White House lied about his involvement in Plame? Or his ever changing story? The missing emails, the changing timeline, or Fitz saying not that there was no underlying crime, but that obstruction of justice occurred with Libby, and he threw sand in the umpire's eyes to ensure that a crime could not be detected?

Rove is innocent. But it is not the case that Fitz said there was no underlying crime.

Ann, wouldn't you agree this is more a victory for an apparently wonderful defense lawyer, Luskin, than it is for what became clear here, a very ethically challenged White House?

Ann, do you honestly feel that in a similar case, someone not on the White House staff, say, you or me, would have had the benefit of five trips before the grand jury?

Is Rove's due process anything similar to what you or I would have been given?

And how do you feel about Rove being able to keep his security clearance after admitting his involvement in the outing of a covert CIA operative?

How do you feel about George saying he would fire anyone associated with that leak, and then backpedaling to say that he would fire anyone only after a conviction?

How do you feel about a whitehouse that uses leaks to the press to defame people, and that unclassifies on their own covert agents just so they can cover their own political hides?

You say you wanted less and not more, but isn't it the case that had Rove come out and admitted his behavior in the very beginning, we would have had very little but the truth and then it really would have been over? Isn't Karl responsible for his own troubles here?

he's still guilty because no one ever proved him innocent?

Oh I acknowledge his innocence according to the law, I await his taking up golf with OJ while they each search for the true criminals.

If it's true that no one will ever be charged for leaking in Plame (and I'm not certain that lack of charges relate to lack of crime, but whatever), well that's very similar to the Ken Starr thing, eh? Nothing came from the original investigation there either, just morphed and expanded until a charge appeared.

Madison Man - you can't be serious. The Starr investigation began with the Whitewater land deal, in which (I recall) 13 of the Clintons' political allies and/or ex-business partners went to jail. Just imagine how the Left would howl if George Bush was ever a partner to a real business scandal that involved legal shenanigans, a bankrupt S&L and taxpayer bailout. Starr's responsibilities "morphed" only because the legitimate scandals (e.g. 900 FBI files at the White House, conveniently only on Republicans) kept coming. The Monica business was only the last in line - and keep in mind Clinton was impeached not just for perjury, but suborning perjury (Monica's false testimony in exchange for a job at Revlon) and tampering with evidence (getting his secretary Betty Curie to return gifts to him). In other words, Clinton was caught trying to fix a court case, not recalling conversations a bit differently than others.

I've always thought that years from now, the Plame-Wilson-Libby case will be remembered as our generation's Salem Witch trial. Too bad Arthur Miller isn't around to write a play about it.

And by the way, Sip - you the man, and you're in the right place. Please don't go.

For me the disgusting aspect of Whitewater was that it was specifically set up to target and victimize lower/middle to middle-class people headed for retirement.

The Clintons and their partners put it very, very tiny fine print that if these people missed even one payment on their property, every payment up to that point was to be considered rent, and they were left with nothing. Then they'd just re-sell/rent the property to the next schmuck.

I went for a long time not knowing this was the real story behind Whitewater. Now when the Clintons posture about caring for the middle class, I want to spit.

Just checked the D Kos kids. As of 851 am, there are only a few angry posts. One speculating Rove turned Cheney, even though the word is there will be no more indictments. A few others proclaiming that he's still guilty (of being Karl Rove or something) but that Fitz was incompetent, and a few admitted there just wasn't quite enough evidence to prosecute. Funny how that rational is so useful in politics. After the Whitewater probe closed without a Hillary indictment, the Dems spun it as complete exoneration, and the Republicans used the aforementioned rational, though I do recall that that is close to the final conclusions of the prosecutors.

PS. Sip. You can't leave. You are part of the Althouse Five... or is that Six???

Yes, Larry, my memory does fail me sometimes. I will say this though: while I vastly prefer Fitzgerald's leak-proof Grand Jury to Starr's, I sometimes wonder how things would evolve if their styles were flipped.

Bush was ... a partner to a real business scandal that involved legal shenanigans, a bankrupt S&L and taxpayer bailout.

And tough if you don't get my standards. It's my blog. I'm not going to spend my time analyzing the principles behind the deletions and reasoning about them in public. You're guests here. Stop cluttering the space with things not worth reading and things that drive away people who do write things worth reading. If you think your writing is so fascinating, what with allusions to song lyric, write your own blog. See if anyone wants to read it. You want to compare yourself to me? That would be how to prove it.

I saw no compassion towards Zarqawi in the thread on his death. (That was the thread that was impossible to post to, wasn't it?) We must interpret things differently. I saw compassion for the father of Berg, and that's it.

This not the first time that Mary has brought up someone's children or the fact of someone's parenthood when she's in a froth about what someone has said. Because of that, song lyric or no, she deserves no benefit of the doubt in that particular regard.

>He assumes we want more. Well, it's too late to get less, which was my preference.<

Hmm. Is your feeling that the White House was justified to expose her and then make grandiose false statements denying it? I'm sure you've explained this at some point, but it seems kind of strange.

The reason liberals want Rove indicted isn't because the criminality is really what matters, but because that's the only way the White House gets held accountable for its blatantly dishonest and unethical behavior. This behavior is particularly aggravating due to the fact that Bush's "moral values" were for so long considered to be his major, if not his only, strong suit. It's also angering because it is so clearly a fraud; he'll make a broad statement that if someone was involved in the leak they wouldn't be in the administration (No, we're way too moral for that kind of thing), but then he just ignores it, back-tracks, and goes on as if his grandiose statements still mean something, and fooling a lot of people in the process. In truth, though, he's fooling less people these days, and for this reason I think interest in this issue has waned, even with liberals.

Of course, we don't know if Rove actually commited perjury or weaseled his way around it; but that was never the source of our dislike. Just like the issue with Al Capone wasn't his tax evasion. In a phrase, I think the anger results from a cynical and unethical political machine that has kept a completely incompetent president in office on the ruse that he can be trusted to do what's right. The Plame affair represents that unethical behavior in many ways, so a lot of people have been hoping there would finally be some accountability.

It's also still frustrating that lying about a sexual affair has been clearly proved to be a more damning offense than lying, it seems, about absolutely anything else. We who thought that sort of lie was kind of to be expected have now found that its salaciousness renders it really the /only/ kind of lie to have an effect politically. Thus, many have gnashed their teeth trying to get the public to pay attention to Bush's lies that seem so much more important, only to hear back that if it's not about sex, nobody really cares.

Though I think we are on opposite sides of this issue, I too went to try to find evidence of that tone, in the Z posts and failed to find it.

changing the subject slightly, here is a nice piece about how the MSM built Z up into the master terrorist, then when caught, he suddenly becomes a small fish whose death actually makes Iraq less safe for the US

Pogo, I'm disappointed that you overlook Madisonman, myself, and the many other left commentators who differ markedly from the many faces of Q and Mary, when you decide that comments from those two people indicate something "common among the left." That's a poor conclusion to come to based on so little. I suspect it's what you want to believe, with or without evidence. That's too bad.

Sippican, don't change a thing about yourself, what you have to say, and when you feel like saying it. I'd miss you terribly.

I would surmise that Karl Rove regards this life as merely an audition for his ultimate goal, that is, to one day manage Richard Nixon's campaign for President of Hell. The unknown variable is whether, by the time Rove arrives, it will be a campaign for re-election, seeing as how Nixon there is likely a member of the majority party.

Mackan, even without indictments, the White House is being held "accountable for its blatantly dishonest and unethical behavior" -- just check the polls.

The problem with special prosecutors -- of the Fitzgerald or Starr variety -- is that it convinces partisans that policy differences can be criminalized instead of debated. In the absence of future Plame-related indictments, I would say the issue has been debated rather sufficiently to tar the President and his men.

Even if the Bush administration is as dishonest and unethical as you say, those behaviours are not necessarily criminal. Trying to force-fit political behaviour you don't like into a star chamber indictment("the reason liberals want Rove indicted isn't because the criminality is really what matters...") is much more dangerous to a democratic system than the passing offensiveness of particular politicians.

* * *

John in Nashville -- I think in Hell, all political parties have one member. Nixon v. Napoleon v. Caligula, etc.

That strikes me as a perfect summary of the liberal view of Rove but (as some of the legal eagles on this site might say) it assumes facts not in evidence - namely that Bush is a liar. Give me one, just one measly example of of a "lie" from this President(i.e. something known to be untrue and uttered with an intent to deceive). Mistakes, sure, but I believe Bush was and remains an unusually honest occupant of his office - and there's simply no comparison with Clinton, who lies as naturally as he breathes.

John in Nash - you are one seriously witty dude. They probably had to put up chicken wire around the comedy clubs in Nashville for your safety.

I am late to the discussion but Rove is a hero to me. If he were a Dem, you'd never see his name without the adjective "brilliant" preceding it. I believe Hollywood should make a cartoon with Rove as a Superhero flying around with his huge forehead and twisting the best liberal minds into anguish-filled knots.

Sippican - I always look forward to reading your comments on this blog. You provide very measured and astute observations and you don't take yourself too seriously.

So stick around or we will go find you and drag you back here! You can't let someone named "Mary" run you off!

Re: "Pogo, I'm disappointed that you overlook Madisonman, myself, and the many other left commentators...."

In trying not to paint with a broad brush, I have failed.

I deliberately left off naming names, thinking them obvious: Jacques, Quxxo, Mary, Thersites, and some of similar tone were my target, not everything left of center. And I am well aware of similar tendencies amongst the LGF crowd, so I don't think it inheres in leftism.

Mary, why are you objecting to Althouse's comment policy? First, it's not your blog. Second, you've been known to bring people's children into conversations before, for no good reason. Third, if Ann's comment policy is so egregious to you, DON'T COMMENT HERE!

Also, all complaints about comment policy from you and Quxxo are hypocritical, given that neither of you have the courtesy to allow comments on your respective blogs.

For the S&L Bailout you need to go to Neil Bush and Silverado who fleeced the taxpayers for a cool $1B and who had a $200 million dollar lawsuit filed against him by federal regulators for gross negligence.

You can of course, toss in Enron if you wish to discuss being partners of a business scandal that involved legal shenanigans. Who was one of George's biggest financial supporter? Kenny Boy Lay who Bush later said, "uh Ken who?"

Innocent until proven guilty? You guys want to say that Rove was innocent but that Bill and Hillary were guilty Whitewater? You guys are beyond belief.

Haha, just heard the news about Rove by turning on Fox and seeing Barbara Boxer trying to keep a phony smile as she ranted and spun. I don't know why Karl Rove has become the devil to the left either. Did it start with that movie Bush's Brain? A lot is probably just that he's so smart. Or that when you keep losing elections you want to believe it's not you that's being rejected, it's that an "evil genius" is manipulating the system and the people. Whatever. Could it be that it's the Democrat voter who's being manipulated by their own party to get so worked up over Karl Rove because they don't have much postive to run on?

As for this: I would broaden that to say that if you ask ANYONE enough questions under oath, eventually they'll commit perjury (or at least, something arguably so).

It's true that perjury happens every day in courts across America, but I reject that it's so easy to commit perjury that any prosecutor could trap you and get you to intentionally lie about a material fact under oath. Maybe someone could come up with an outlandish scenerio where I'd commit perjury, but outside of that I never would.

Mackan, the notion that Bush is completely incompetent convicts the entire US of stupidity in electing him. Many voted for Bush because the Democrats (incompetently, IMO) put forth a deeply flawed candidate. Bush does have some strengths -- he wouldn't be where he is now if he didn't.

For the record, on some Althouse thread somewhere, in response to a query by, I think, Elizabeth, I stated that I thought Rove should resign (I'm pretty sure that I said for various reasons, but I probably didn't specify; they mostly don't have to do with the Plame affair).

So I'm no fan.

But I've also thought for a long while that his being indicted was a very long shot, indeed. As a layperson only, of course, I wasn't seeing how charges of criminal wrongdoing against them were going to hold up. And, in fact, I don't think much of this whole scandal, or how the investigation and so forth has played out, on so many levels, for so many reasons.

This outcome doesn't surprise me; nor do the reactions from both sides.

In any case, it appears to me that the book is largely, if not wholly, closed on Rove, at least in this regard, and any other expectation is misguided, at best.

As for the White House commenting, or Rove, in particular, isn't it likely that he'll be called to testify in Libby's case? Which means, like all witnesses, he's probably under strict instructions NOT to comment. Or isn't that SOP?

There was absolutely no evidence of insider trading et al at Harken and Arbusto - Democrats have been trying and failing to find evidence of that since his first run for Gov (kind of like the TANG, and we see how that ended...although that's a discussion for a whole other thread).

On the taxpayer funding for the Rangers Stadium, I'm not a huge fan of public financing of stadiums either, but as I'm sure you know that is the norm, and it is agreed to voluntarily in advance by state and local governments, unlike a bailout.

Also, most S&L failures - including Silverado - didn't happen because of fraud, but McDougal's did.

The Enron thing is beyond lame - yes, Bush was a supporter of Ken Lay's, and so was his predecessor Ann Richards, as anyone would be who was Governor of Texas. Bush was not in business with Enron, not responsible for regulating Enron and had nothing to do with anything that happened there - again, unlike Bill and Hillary and the Whitewater crowd.

MadCityMan - I was responding to Mackan, who wrote as if he was speaking for all liberals. I don't believe he does, and didn't mean to imply otherwise...

Our hostess, by adding the Art to the post above us has created a freudian composition of art and what looks at a distance to be the caption:Rove! Once again, he escapes the forces of justice! Oh, the pain that will wrack the lefty blogosphere today!

"neither of you have the courtesy to allow comments on your respective blogs." Bizarre!

Madison,I don't want to belabor this, but there were plenty of comments, not yours I don't think, that the suicides of these probably innocent prisoners were prompted by despair and our uncivilized treatment and that it was wrong to take pleasure in Zarqawi's death. But that's my interpretation, not everyone's.

I'm seeing Hugh Jackman in the title role. Can we get Andrew Lloyd Weber? Can somebody talk to his people?

Patca: "Uncivilized"? That's a deliberate joke, right? According to the left, the only way to qualify as "civilization" is to agree with them about absolutely everything. If you don't have gay marriage and free medical care, along with dozens of other ludicrously arbitrary items (list subject to change without notice), you're not a civilization. But that's meaningless, because by that definition, no civilization has ever actually existed. If it did exist, it would succumb to invasion or collapse, because it would have no will to live or to defend itself. Even before the end came, it would have ceased to be a civilization because the left would have invented a whole new preposterous definition that excluded it.

In the real world, civilizations get exceedingly ugly when they think they must. That's not a bug; it's an essential design requirement. The alternative is barbarism. Life is not all nice. If you stop eating because you don't want to create poop, you are an idiot.

There's near-infinite room to debate any given policy, but let's drop this infantile nonsense about who's civilized and who isn't.

Trying to read the tea leaves has been interesting here. I think in the end, Fitz knew he didn't have enough to prove purjury or obstruction of justice, because his major charge would have revolved around Rove voluntarily changing his story, based apparently on an email that was discovered later. As Rove pointed out, he apparently was fielding hundreds of calls a day, and it would not be surprising that he forgot one out of those, esp. months later. And that, in the end, was what Fitz would have had to overcome, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rove really had remembered that phone conversation, out of hundreds he was taking daily then.

The other problem that appears to have become evident through the Libby discovery motions is that any Rove prosecution would have to depend on Cooper's testimony, and the judge has already found it impeached (obviously, for you attorneys there, this is a question of fact for the jury - exactly how important were those differences between different Cooper stories). So, in a he-says/ he-says criminal case, Fitz would be swimming up stream with the credibility of one of his star witnesses.

I have always found it humorous though that Libby, the top flight lawyer, is the one who got caught up in the coverup.

the White House is being held "accountable for its blatantly dishonest and unethical behavior" -- just check the polls.

Henry, I've never caught on to the joy of the dropping polls for Bush. I keep thinking they're months too late for any good to come of 'em. He's a lame duck now, so who cares what his poll numbers are? By the way--political parties in hell: verrrry funny!

I too have had a former life as a coherant writer. The more freshman composition papers I read, comment on, and grade, the worse my own prose seems to get. By the end of each semester I am reduced to short, monosyllabic phrases and gestures.

I will agree that 100 calls a day is a bit much. My impression is that he does work long hours and does talk to a lot of people during a day, but, still, with a 12.5 hour work day, that translates into 8 calls an hour, which is an average of 7.5 minues per call - which would not give him time for meetings, etc.

Nevertheless, Rove does talk to a lot of people every day on the phone, including a lot of reporters. More than almost anyone.

Hi Elizabeth. I agree with you about poll stories (MEGO), but for the complaint that a mid-term politician lacks accountability they do seem pertinent. A better approach might be to point out that Bush's agenda the last two years has been DOA, partly, I think, because many citizens are holding him accountable (for whatever).

* * *

As for the phone call debate -- throw in email and you've got to be talking thousands of messages a day. Someone must vet Rove's emails (as I'm sure they vet his phone calls), but I've known corporate middle managers who easily average several hundred emails a day -- all from people with legitimate questions.

I can't know for sure, I guess. The first thing I would've asked as a prosecutor, if a defendant threw out that vague 'hundreds' number, would be to quantify how long the phone calls are. How long do you work each day? They better match!

It's my impression, though, that many lawyers don't understand math very well. Maybe Mr. Fitzgerald is someone for whom a rapid scale analysis of numbers is difficult. And of course, I don't even know what was really said, I'm just reacting to what Bruce wrote!

>Give me one, just one measly example of of a "lie" from this President(i.e. something known to be untrue and uttered with an intent to deceive).<

Ok. For starters, though, I would point out that of course Bush tries to avoid specific misstatements of fact. But that's hardly what "lying politicians" is about. "Lying politicians" is about statements like the following, which Bush made in response to repeated calls for him to denounce the Swift Boat Veterans' attacks on John Kerry:

"Q But why won't you denounce the charges that your supporters are making against Kerry?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm denouncing all the stuff being on TV of the 527s. That's what I've said. I said this kind of unregulated soft money is wrong for the process. And I asked Senator Kerry to join me in getting rid of all that kind of soft money, not only on TV, but used for other purposes, as well. I, frankly, thought we'd gotten rid of that when I signed the McCain-Feingold bill. I thought we were going to, once and for all, get rid of a system where people could just pour tons of money in and not be held to account for the advertising. And so I'm disappointed with all those kinds of ads."

Do I need to explain what is dishonest about this response? Here we have an incredibly dishonest and damaging smear campaign against his opponent. So will Bush do the right thing and disown it? No, of course not. Instead, he'll change the subject to his supposed opposition of 527's, despite the fact that Bush was an outspoken critic of McCain Feingold before political pressure finally forced him to sign it (but without a ceremony), and then he says, "so I'm disappointed with all those kinds of ads." Yeah, I bet you are.

A bit shrewd, shall we say? Make it sound like you disagree with what's going on when the fact is that you don't, and you're purposefully allowing it to continue without your condemnation which could kill it. As far as I'm concerned, that makes Bush entirely responsible for every lie told by the "Swift Boat Veterans."

Am I being unreasonable? Am I expecting too much?

It's just one example. There has certainly been much more of this kind of dishonesty. I think this is exactly the kind of thing, though, for which Democrats blame Karl Rove.

>I am late to the discussion but Rove is a hero to me. If he were a Dem, you'd never see his name without the adjective "brilliant" preceding it.<

I sincerely doubt it. Liberals like campaign managers like Joe Trippi, not like Karl Rove. Rove represent an American conservative aesthetic of the end justifying the means. It's the difference between Jimmy Carter types and Tom Delay types. It's not just a matter of partisanship.

Thanks Mackan. If that's the best you can do (a less than entirely unambiguous response to a debate question) I rest my case - George Bush is an unusually honest occupant of his office.

Clinton, of course, looked directly into the camera and lied to secure his party's nomination (the 60 Minutes interview, in which he categorically denied any sexual involvement with Gennifer Flowers - a statement he later contradicted under oath; if he wouldn't have lied with Hillary at his side at that critical point his campaign would have sunk), keep his job (the infamous "I did not have sexual relations" yada yada yada - and no lawyerly BS, it was an outright lie - and Clinton has never delivered any other statement with such passionate conviction), and hundreds of times in between. The Left remains steamed that their most successful politician in generations was a compulsive liar and have been tried to shed this burden by trying, since the beginning of his Presidency, to pin the same rap on GWB. Like so many other efforts from the Left, this has failed.

Clinton lied about sex, that's agreed. My whole point was that liberals are annoyed that Clinton's lies re: his sex life are somehow considered worse than anything else.

Here's my guess: For the hundreds of lies you think Clinton told, I bet I could come up with at least as dismissive a remark as you can for the lies that have been charged against Bush.

In any case, I don't know if Bush's tacit and shameless endorsement of the Swift-Boat defamation is the best example of his dishonesty, but it's one that starkly confirmed the matter to me. When someone is making dishonest attacks on your behalf, and you play deceptive games to avoid criticizing it, you aren't just deceptive; you are just as responsible as the liars themselves. In my mind, the above instance is a very clear example of this, and again, represents a pattern with Bush and Rove, and their tendency to /promote/ lies while doing everything they can to avoid making Bush actually tell them. Dismiss it if you want -- that's exactly how they're designed to be -- but that's what angers Dems.

Is Bush unusually dishonest? That I don't know. I'd settle for dishonest as anybody else. The fact that Rove has been his right hand man, though, a man widely considered to be one of the most Machiavellian guys in politics, is, I think, a legitimate source for skepticism re: Bush's moral values.

A better example of the anger towards Rove might be anger over the politicization of the War on Terror, particularly during the last election, while repeatedly saying it shouldn't be politicized. I know, it's not a specific lie about who Bush slept with, but some of us actually find it more troubling.

The problem is with the Swift Boat thing is that it wasn't proven to be defamation. It might have been, but what we had was a he says/he says argument, and Kerry did little to back up his side of it. Most notably, over two years after he promised on national TV to release all of his military records, he still hasn't.

But we do know that at least some of Kerry's story was inaccurate. He wasn't in Cambodia Christmas of 1968 listening to president Nixon, first because Nixon wasn't president yet, secondly, because he would have been jailed for it, and third, because he ultimately admitted that his dates were wrong (and even then, his new story is questionable).

There is at least some other aspects of his story that just don't wash, even to this day. They just weren't going to put a green j.g. in charge of a three man skimmer. It just wasn't done. At a minimum, the mission commander would have gone out with him at least once (and claims to have been onboard the skimmer on most of its missions anyway).

So, calling their charges "defamation" is just blowing hot air. Kerry's claims were just as suspect, if not more so, than theirs were.

Besides, it was only their first ad that attacked Kerry's actual Vietnam service. The more devasting one had those clips from Kerry's testimony before Congress about atrocities being committed on a routine basis against the Vietnamese. That is the one that lost the votes of so many of the Vietnam vets. That may have been inconvenient, but it was hardly defamation, as it was Kerry's own voice.

Besides, what would you expect the President to say? That he condemmed the ads against Kerry, but condoned those against him that were just as nasty, if not more so? I think it silly to expect that. He was getting hit just as hard, if not harder, by 527 ads. Why the double standard? Why were inaccurate 527 ads against Bush ok, but those against Kerry not ok?

The reason that it is unlikely that a crime was actually committed in the disclosure of Plame's covert status is that not all the elements of such a crime were likely to be provable. The bigggest missing element was intent. But, given her maternal status, etc., it is also likely that she wouldn't have qualified anyway (i.e. the requirement that the covert agent be stationed overseas withhin the previous five years).

The relevant statute was drafted in response to a specific instance - that of an intentional disclosure of covert American agents overseas, where it appears that as a result of this, not only were they compromised, but some died.

For this reason, the statute is quite narrow - much to narrow to support a conviction of Rove, Libby, or even Cheney.

That left disclosure of classified information. But any prosecution there was most likely compromised by Cheney's involvement. He had the delegated power from the President to declassify anything he wanted to.

As a result of all of this, Fitz determined early on that no original crime had been committed. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. And that left crimes committed during the investigation, and thus the Libby indictment.

Again, let me repeat myself. The independant prosecutor determined, all on his own, without interferance from the Administration, that no original crimes had been committed. None. Claiming the contrary just makes somone look partisan and less than serious.

>The problem is with the Swift Boat thing is that it wasn't proven to be defamation.<

I disagree completely, but I hope you won't insist that I debate the issue at length.

What should Bush have said? "I'd ask the Swift Vets to pull these ads. I don't think this campaign should be about my oponent's military service 30 years ago." McCain, of course, went further, specifically calling them dishonest and dishonorable.

If you can't see what's immoral about the kind of attack they leveled, I really don't know what to tell you. Personally, I don't think veterans should have their service tarnished 30 years later by people falsely claiming to have first hand knowledge.

As to Fitz, I have no idea how you think he determined Libby and Rove's lack of intent early on, or that Cheney was behind the whole thing. I also have no idea why you appear so smug over your assertion that the statutes were written too broadly to really get anybody for anything. Is that vindication for Rove? Does that make it ok to leak the name of a classified CIA agent to attack the credibility of her husband? Is there anything you won't defend?

I don't think that we should have politicians who based their political career on lies before Congress. It has been proven over and over again that Kerry and the fellow witnesses before the Congress lied about what they witnessed and did in Vietnam, yet Kerry has been dining out on that testimony for over 30 years now. He has also never released his records as he promised almost 2 years ago to prove that the Switft Boat Veterans were lying. It sort of sounds as if he does not dare release them, at least not until he gets Sandy to go in there and steal a few items from the records.ok

I for one, as a Vietnam Vet would never ever vote for Kerry after he accused me and my buddies of being war criminals, he said:

we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

He did that while still an officer in the US Navy. He also met with the enemy in Paris while officer in the US Navy.